Ohio had a law forbidding concealed carry. No permit was available, even on a "may issue" basis. The law contained a few "affirmative defense" exceptions, all which as a practical matter resulted in arrest of the person in question -- he could only use the defense later in court. The law was challenged in Klein v Leis, which was decided in 2003 by the Ohio supreme court. It upheld the prohibition on the (implied) basis that open carry was allowed (since it contended that the law merely regulated the manner of carrying). Shortly thereafter, a number of open carry "defense walks" were performed as a means of protesting the law. And shortly after that, the legislature passed a "shall issue" concealed carry permit law.

A case upholding open carry could easily yield the same result in states like California, especially if a concerted effort to lawfully carry firearms openly were to occur. But it would have to happen under conditions where the legislature would have no real legislative alternative but to pass a "shall issue" concealed carry law. Which is to say, there would have to be no alternative legislation available for the legislature to pass that would effectively prevent such actions. If some other more malevolent legislative means of preventing open carry exists, the legislatures in rights-hostile states will obviously go that direction instead.

I believe that if a majority of gun owners would open carry after Norman comes down in our favor....That states would soon allow constitutional carry or in other words, concealed carry without a permit. This is where the gun organizations need to come together on this, as it's going to be a one shot deal. If we get people running to get shall issue permits when the states start giving them out like candy, constitutional carry will never happen in those states.

I believe that if a majority of gun owners would open carry after Norman comes down in our favor....That states would soon allow constitutional carry or in other words, concealed carry without a permit. This is where the gun organizations need to come together on this, as it's going to be a one shot deal. If we get people running to get shall issue permits when the states start giving them out like candy, constitutional carry will never happen in those states.

Perhaps, although I have heard some leftists thinking that less will carry if OC is the only method allowed, not to mention they will try to make more off limits areas which will be more likely enforced if guns are visible.

Perhaps, although I have heard some leftists thinking that less will carry if OC is the only method allowed, not to mention they will try to make more off limits areas which will be more likely enforced if guns are visible.

I'm hazy on this, but weren't these options (open carry / off limits) available to Illinois? Then they voted in concealed carry?

I'm hazy on this, but weren't these options (open carry / off limits) available to Illinois? Then they voted in concealed carry?

Yes, but the Republicans had an advantage, in that the Democrats did not have a veto proof majority. If they did, I have no doubt that they would have instituted the same may issue/no issue scheme the other deep blue states have. Since the 7th Circuit decision invalidated the law, people could carry with just an FOID if the legislature did nothing. The Republicans refused to vote for any concealed carry law that was not reasonable (i.e. shall issue and without too many ridiculous exclusions), knowing that if the Democrats refused to go along, they'd have essentially permitless carry.

I'm hazy on this, but weren't these options (open carry / off limits) available to Illinois? Then they voted in concealed carry?

No, open carry was (and still is) illegal in Illinois. What made Illinois ripe for a lawsuit was the complete ban on carrying firearms outside the home, open or concealed.

The 7th CA really didn't address the open vs. concealed issue, other than to say that a complete ban was unconstitutional.

The anti-gun faction of the IL General Assembly did not have a supermajority to pass any carry law they wanted. There were many pro-gun bluedog democrats who voted for the carry bill, and eventually overrode Gov. Quinn(D) on his amendatory veto.

A shall-issue concealed carry law was part of the many compromises to get us statewide preemption of all handgun laws.

Our goal in Illinois was never OPEN carry, or CONCEALED carry, but simply the RIGHT TO CARRY.

3 weeks before the due date, the state of FL has waived its response. The test now will be if SCOTUS requires a response.

I was hoping that FL would reply and cite the heck out of Wrenn

According to an empirical analysis of cert procedures http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/...2_Wachtell.pdf this happens in 80% of the cases. In only about 200 does SCOTUS request a response. While the request for grant in paid cases makes it 4 times more likely to grant, the overall rate is still very low (>85% of paid cases rejected)

According to an empirical analysis of cert procedures http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/...2_Wachtell.pdf this happens in 80% of the cases. In only about 200 does SCOTUS request a response. While the request for grant in paid cases makes it 4 times more likely to grant, the overall rate is still very low (>85% of paid cases rejected)

It's admittedly a pretty low bar. I haven't seen Scotus NOT ask for a response in a 2A case other than Embody's.